While the man had substantial experience, the plaintiff acknowledged she was new to the position. The court noted that the plaintiff recognized the male employee brought skills and experience to the job that she did not possess. In addition, the appeals court said a marginal pay differential is permitted if it arises from a finely calibrated compensation system that is based on legitimate factors. Here, it noted that the pay differential substantially narrowed when terms other than base compensation were factored in. It was then up to the employer to establish that the pay differential was based on any factor other than sex.Įducation or experience is a permissible factor recognized by the EPA, the court said. This was enough for the plaintiff to establish her initial case, the court said. The male employee had an identical job title, and his duties were substantially the same as the plaintiff's job duties. Meanwhile, the male employee made $335,000. For 2017, the plaintiff was paid $326,526, including her overtime pay. The appeals court said the record showed that, after incentive compensation was taken into consideration, the plaintiff had the potential to earn $300,000 and the male employee $330,000. A differential based on any factor other than sex.A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.If the employee shows all three factors, her employer may establish an affirmative defense by demonstrating the pay differential is the result of one of the following: Which were performed under similar working conditions.For equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility,.She was paid less than a man employed in the same establishment,.To proceed with a claim under the law, a female employee must first show that: The EPA prohibits wage discrimination against employees on the basis of sex. The trial court dismissed the action before trial, and the plaintiff appealed. Additionally, the plaintiff was paid overtime, while the new hire was not. The acting managing director explained that while the plaintiff's base salary was $200,000, she had an incentive compensation guideline plan of $100,000, which was $45,000 more than the new hire's plan. For example, she contended that she was able to perform billable client service delivery of the company's consulting services and solutions, which the newer hire was not able to perform. The plaintiff acknowledged she had no prior experience as a client partner but contended that she possessed valuable skills that the newer hire did not. Approximately six months after that hire, the plaintiff resigned and subsequently brought a wage discrimination action against the firm under the EPA.Īccording to the acting managing director, the new hire was brought on board with a higher salary than the plaintiff because he brought a broad experience to the firm that the plaintiff lacked. In May 2017, the acting managing director of the branch where the plaintiff worked hired a man as a new director/client partner with a base salary of $275,000. During the next three years, she received several promotions, ultimately serving as a director/client partner with a base salary of $200,000. In March 2014, the plaintiff began working at a consulting firm as a senior manager with a starting base salary of $135,000. Notably, the man had prior experience in the position, while the woman did not. A management consultant could not bring her federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) wage discrimination claim to trial because the employer had a legitimate reason other than sex for paying the one comparable male employee slightly more than it paid the plaintiff, a federal appeals court ruled.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |